The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that reviews institutional implementation of the principles set out in the FSB Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes in 16 jurisdictions. The analysis concludes that conflicts of interest between the resolution and supervisory functions can arise irrespective of whether they are institutionally co-located or separate. A key factor in all types of arrangements is balancing operational independence for the resolution function with structures that allow it to benefit from synergies with the supervisory function.
The review shows the variation that exists in the institutional arrangements for bank resolution. While the adoption of the Key Attributes has given authorities an opportunity to review and possibly adjust their bank resolution arrangements, the principles-based nature of these standards regarding the resolution authority leaves scope for jurisdictions to integrate the resolution function within their existing institutional architecture. One of the principal considerations that emerged from discussions with authorities is how to achieve appropriate operational independence for the resolution function while enabling it to benefit from the synergies with the supervisory function. While the potential for conflicts of interest between supervision and resolution is widely recognized, there is a growing perception of the benefits of institutional arrangements that support close cooperation between the two functions. This negotiation between the two principles—operational independence and conflict management, on the one hand, and exploiting synergies on the other—is still ongoing in some authorities as new arrangements evolve and mature.
The review shows that conflicts of interest between resolution and supervisory functions could arise independently of the location of the resolution function. The co-location of the supervisory and resolution functions facilitates coordination and the resolution of conflicts through internal governance arrangements. To date, the bank resolution function in its current form is relatively new, and untested, in many jurisdictions. Therefore, effective practices in this area may still be a work in progress. Resolution authorities have not encountered significant obstacles in resolution planning and, where the arrangements were in place in earlier crises, in the conduct of bank resolution. Complex arrangements, such as hybrid models primarily resulting from historical experience, require greater coordination efforts. Resolution authorities also consider their staffing levels and legal protection as broadly adequate to exercise their functions, with the possibility of scaling-up resources in times of increased pressure.
Keywords: International, Banking, Resolution Planning, Resolution Framework, Key Attributes, Resolution Regime, Reporting, FSI, BIS
Previous ArticleEIOPA Launches Stress Test for Insurance Sector in EU
In a letter addressed to the industry, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) set out an updated schedule of policy priorities for the banking, insurance, and superannuation industries.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published answers to 29 questions in the Single Rulebook Question and Answer (Q&A) tool in September.
The European Commission (EC) adopted a comprehensive review package of Solvency II rules in the European Union.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Versions 1.0 of the "Earnings" and "Regulatory Reporting" booklets of the Comptroller's Handbook.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published results of its economy-wide climate stress test, which aimed to assess the resilience of non-financial corporates and euro area banks to climate risks.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a report on the use of digital platforms in the banking and payments sector in European Union.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) published updates on the policy measures that were announced in context of the ongoing pandemic.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), along with several other associations, submitted a joint response to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) consultation on preliminary proposals for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures.
BIS published the September issue of the Quarterly Review, which contains special features that analyze the rapid rise in equity funding for financial technology firms, the effectiveness of policy measures in response to pandemic, and the evolution of international banking.
The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) met in September 2021 and reviewed climate-related financial risks, discussed impact of digitalization, and welcomed efforts by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation to develop a common set of sustainability reporting standards